IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM MA No. 377/MUM/2 022 Arisi ng out of SA 3 9/MUM/2022 (Asse ssment Year 2015-16) MA No. 378/MUM/2 022 Arisi ng out of SA 4 0/MUM/2022 (Asse ssment Year 2014-15) ACIT CIRCLE -7( 2)( 1) Room No. 126D, 1 st Floor, Aaya kar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Marsh India In suran ce Brokers Pvt. Ltd 1201-02, Tower On e India Bulls Centre, Jupitar Mi lls Co mpound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road ( West) Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCM4220G Assessee by : Shri. Ma dhur Ag arw a l Revenue by : Shri. Sa mue l P it ta – SR AR Date of h ea r ing: 20.0 1.20 23 Date of pronouncement : 09.02. 20 23 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are the two MA applications filed by the DCIT 7(2)(1) Mumbai [ The Ld AO ] in stay order in SA No. 39 and 40/MUM/2022 in for A.Y. 2014-15 wherein the tribunal has extended the stay already granted vide order dated 06.10.2021 for a further period of 180 days for till the disposal of application of advance pricing agreement of the assessee , whichever is earlier. Page | 2 MA No.377/MUM/2022 Arising out of SA 39/MUM/2022, MA No. 378/MUM/2022 Arising out of SA 40/MUM2022 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd;,A.Y.2014-15, 2015-16 02. The only grievance of the ld. AO is that the Tribunal does not have power to allow the extension of stay beyond 365 days as per the time limit stipulated in third proviso to Sub-Section 2A of Section 254 of the Act. 03. We have heard the rival parties. The originally stay was granted by the co-ordinate bench by order dated 21.02.2020 for a period of 180 days. On 12.03.2021, an interim order was passed by coordinate bench granting stay based on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court extending the stay for interim period and on 06.10.2021 further granted stay for period of 180 days. This stay is further extended by 180 days vide order dated 08.04.2020. The only challenge is that the Tribunal does not have power to extend the stay beyond 365 days. It is also an admitted fact that the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee. This issue has already been concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2021 in DCIT Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd dated 06.04.2021 wherein it has been held that, if delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, the stay can be extended. In view of the above facts, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal in extending the stay. 04. Accordingly, both the MA Applications filed by the ld. AO are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (PRASHANT MAHARI SHI) (JUDICI AL ME MBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 09.02.2023 Uday Mugal, Stenographer Page | 3 MA No.377/MUM/2022 Arising out of SA 39/MUM/2022, MA No. 378/MUM/2022 Arising out of SA 40/MUM2022 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd;,A.Y.2014-15, 2015-16 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai